Detailed Office Action
1. This communication is being filed in response to the submission having a mailing date of (11/19/2024) in which a (3) month Shortened Statutory Period for Response has been set.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application is being examined under the pre-AlA first to invent provisions.
Acknowledgements
3. Upon initial entry, claims (1 -20) appear pending for examination, of which claims (1, 14 and 17) are the three (3) parallel running independent claims on record.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The two (2) submitted IDS dated on (11/19/2024) are partially in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, being reviewed and considered by the Examiner.
4.1. Multiple entries from the IDS have been discarded, for failure to cite the relevant pages in the publication. Each of the submitted publications must comply with the 37 CFR 1.98 provisions, in order evaluate the corresponded information listed, to be considered by the Office. See also MPEP [37 CFR 1.98(b); - Each publication must be identified by publisher, author (if any), title, relevant pages of the publication, and date and place of publication.]
4.2. It is also note that the instant Application is a continuation of a large family of patent applications. However, in the light of the MPEP provision “each patent application must stand on its own”, the undersigned is requesting that Applicant provide the Office with all the documents he’s believe may be relevant to the patentability of this specific filing. See also MPEP 704.11 (b) for details, and see also 37 CFR 1.105 - “each patent application must stand on its own”.
4.3. Further, some other entries have been discarded because they are pointed to internet hyperlinks, that may be subjected to deletion, modification or relocation. A timely submitted digital copies of the referring papers/documents is also recommended moving forward.
Specification
5. The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
6. The submitted Drawings on date (11/19/2024) has been accepted and considered under the 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
Claim clarification
7. For the purpose of examination, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation
doctrine, the following terms will be considered to read as following:
7.1. The term [“non-output frame” /”non-showable frame” /”non-displayable frame”; and/or similar defined concepts] – will be read as (e.g. buffered intermediate data used for intra/inter mode prediction; [specs; 0033; 0051; Claim 13]).
7.2. Also, the claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. However, examples of claim language, although not exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim are: (A) “adapted to” clauses; (B) “wherein” clauses; and (C) “whereby” clauses. M.P.E.P. 2111.04. The clause is given weight when it provides "meaning and purpose” to the claimed invention but not when “it simply expresses the intended result” of the invention. In Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329, 74 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Claim rejection
Double patent rejection
8. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g. In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
8.1. A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
8.2. Individuals associated with the filing and prosecution of the instant patent application have a duty to disclose information within their knowledge as to other copending United States applications which are "material to patentability" of the application in question. See MPEP §2001.06(b) for more details.
8.3. Independent Claims (1, 14 and 17) and the associated dependencies, of the instant Application 18/952,696, directed to - a codec application for coding video streams, employing the encoded constructed reference frame, in an output bitstream, as a non-showable frame; – also being rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious-type double patenting as being unpatentable over the associated independent claims of the parent Applications (16/221,853 and 17/834,972). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other, because the claims use similar scope of the invention, and/or similar variations of the same claim language.
Instant Appl.
18/952,696
Reference: 16/221,853
(now US 11375240 B2)
Reference: 17/834,972
(now US 12184901 B2)
1. An apparatus comprising: memory including instructions for encoding a video stream; and a processor that executes the instructions to: generate an encoded video, wherein to generate the encoded video the processor executes the instructions to: receive an input video stream; generate an encoded constructed reference frame, wherein to generate the encoded constructed reference frame the processor executes the instructions to encode a first input frame from the input video stream; include the encoded constructed reference frame in an output bitstream as a non-showable frame; generate a reconstructed reference frame, to generate the reconstructed reference frame the processor executes the instructions to reconstruct the coded constructed reference frame; generate an encoded frame, wherein to generate the encoded frame the processor executes the instructions to encode a second input frame from the input video stream using reconstructed reference frame as a reference frame; and include the encoded frame in the output bitstream; and output the output bitstream.
1. A method of encoding a video stream, the method comprising: generating, by a processor in response to instructions stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium, an encoded video, wherein generating the encoded video includes: receiving an input video stream; generating a constructed reference frame; generating an encoded constructed reference frame by encoding the constructed reference frame; including the encoded constructed reference frame in an output bitstream such that the constructed reference frame is a non-showable frame; generating an encoded frame by encoding a current frame from the input video stream using the constructed reference frame as a reference frame; and including the encoded frame in the output bitstream; and outputting the output bitstream.
1. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon an encoded bitstream, wherein the encoded bitstream is configured for decoding by operations comprising: generating a decoded video, wherein generating the decoded video includes: generating decoded constructed reference frame by decoding an encoded constructed reference frame from the encoded bitstream, wherein the decoded constructed reference frame is a non-output frame; generating a decoded current frame by decoding an encoded current frame from the encoded bitstream using the decoded constructed reference frame as a reference frame; and including the decoded current frame in the decoded video such that the decoded constructed reference frame is omitted from the decoded video.
8.4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made/filed, to combine the instant 18/952,696, with the cited above references, because although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other, the claim language uses similar scope of the invention, and/or a similar variation of the same claim language.
Claim Objection section
9. The three (3) parallel running independent claims (1, 14, 17) and the associated dependencies, are objected to, because of the judicially created Double patent doctrine (see section (8) above), but they may be considered for allowance if properly rewritten, and/or if a Terminal Disclaimer is timely filed, in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d).
Prior Art Citations
10. The following List of prior art, made of record and not relied upon, is/are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
10.1. Patent documentation
US 9,014,266 B1 Gu; et al. H04N19/58;H04N19/159;H04N19/433
US 10,165,306 B2 Bankoski; et al. H04N19/127; H04N19/61; H04N19/105;
US 11,375,240 B2 Bankoski; et al. H04N19/176; H04N19/527; H04N19/80
US 12,184,901 B2 Bankoski; et al. H04N19/139; H04N19/80; H04N19/105;
US 2008/0112486 A1 Takahashi; et al. H04N19/61; H04N19/159; H04N19/105;
US 2008/0130755 A1 Loukas; et al. H04N19/57; H04N19/53; H04N19/119;
US 2003/0227974 A1 Nakamura; et al. H04N19/48; H04N19/59; H04N19/90;
US 2005/0226327 A1 Kim; et al. H04N19/109; H04N19/132; H04N19/152;
10.2. Non-Patent documentation:
_ Overview of the H.264-AVC; Wiegand -2003;
_ Video compression H264-AVC; Sullivan – 2005;
_ VP7 data format and decoder; 2005;
_ VP6 bitstream and decoder specification; 2006;
CONCLUSIONS
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS PEREZ-FUENTES (luis.perez-fuentes@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is (571) 270 -1168. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, WILLIAM VAUGHN can be reached on (571) 272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 272 -3922. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated system, please call (800) 786 -9199 (USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272 -1000.
/LUIS PEREZ-FUENTES/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481.